Why Some People Are More Attractive Than Others
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
the least attractive males and females will still breed (probably with the aid of alchohol).
:rolleyes: :laugh:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Just another release from the Department of Useless and Futile "Research". These guys are replicating one of the most stupid mistakes people do when studying evolution: they apply it to modern human societies. It is basic in evolution that natural selection must act through long periods of time and the selection criteria must remain constant. When you study human history you're talking about 65 000 years or little more. During all this time the patterns of attractiveness have changed a lot every 100 years or even less. And what about other factors way more important to increase survival rates (e.g.: sanitation, fertility rate, etc)? Evolution doesn't apply to modern humans anymore. Every decent biologist knows that.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonOf course it does, you just can't use historical evolution to study it. It's become more of a speculative science. If evolution didn't apply, that would mean we would never evolve.
-
From the article: "The problem with current evolutionary theory is that if females select the most attractive mates, the genes responsible for attractive features should spread quickly through a population, resulting in males becoming equally attractive, to the point where sexual selection could no longer take place." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that all females will only breed with the most attractive males. In reality the most attractive females will tend to get the most attractive males. But the least attractive males and females will still breed (probably with the aid of alchohol). Which will maintain the diverse gene pool. Or something like that.
Dan Bennett wrote:
"The problem with current evolutionary theory is that if females select the most attractive mates, the genes responsible for attractive features should spread quickly through a population, resulting in males becoming equally attractive, to the point where sexual selection could no longer take place." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that all females will only breed with the most attractive males. In reality the most attractive females will tend to get the most attractive males. But the least attractive males and females will still breed (probably with the aid of alchohol). Which will maintain the diverse gene pool. Or something like that.
The problem with the concept of applied evolution is that it's a series of guesses as to what caused what. It's not science and based completely in fantasy. And yet, people think they're being scientific when they invent these causes.
-
Of course it does, you just can't use historical evolution to study it. It's become more of a speculative science. If evolution didn't apply, that would mean we would never evolve.
Brady Kelly wrote:
It's become more of a speculative science.
"Speculative science"? Sounds like "military intelligence", "honest politician", "advanced BASIC", "Microsoft Works", "Keyboard error. Press any key to continue", "compassionate conservative", ...:)
Brady Kelly wrote:
If evolution didn't apply, that would mean we would never evolve.
That's exactly what I mean: we will not evolve anymore. The "natural selection" part of evolution doesn't work anymore. Technologies and changing social patterns destroyed it. Look at all the human traits established in the last 65 000 years (e.g.: immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European diseases, tendency towards sickle-cell anemia in black people, eastern Asian eyes, inability to process lactose in non Caucasians and non Asians, etc). All of them appeared because we didn't have technology to handle the hardships of nature that resulted in natural selection. Now we have that technology and, for the majority of population, natural selection doesn't select.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Brady Kelly wrote:
It's become more of a speculative science.
"Speculative science"? Sounds like "military intelligence", "honest politician", "advanced BASIC", "Microsoft Works", "Keyboard error. Press any key to continue", "compassionate conservative", ...:)
Brady Kelly wrote:
If evolution didn't apply, that would mean we would never evolve.
That's exactly what I mean: we will not evolve anymore. The "natural selection" part of evolution doesn't work anymore. Technologies and changing social patterns destroyed it. Look at all the human traits established in the last 65 000 years (e.g.: immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European diseases, tendency towards sickle-cell anemia in black people, eastern Asian eyes, inability to process lactose in non Caucasians and non Asians, etc). All of them appeared because we didn't have technology to handle the hardships of nature that resulted in natural selection. Now we have that technology and, for the majority of population, natural selection doesn't select.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonDiego Moita wrote:
That's exactly what I mean: we will not evolve anymore. The "natural selection" part of evolution doesn't work anymore. Technologies and changing social patterns destroyed it.
Yes, but we still procreate and change generation for generation, therefore we evolve. The mutations are no longer 'natural', but the selection is. Natural selection is not selection, it's what we use to describe the phenomena of what survives. Any progeny of ours that survive our technological changes will have evolved to some degree after millenia.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
It's become more of a speculative science.
"Speculative science"? Sounds like "military intelligence", "honest politician", "advanced BASIC", "Microsoft Works", "Keyboard error. Press any key to continue", "compassionate conservative", ...:)
Brady Kelly wrote:
If evolution didn't apply, that would mean we would never evolve.
That's exactly what I mean: we will not evolve anymore. The "natural selection" part of evolution doesn't work anymore. Technologies and changing social patterns destroyed it. Look at all the human traits established in the last 65 000 years (e.g.: immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European diseases, tendency towards sickle-cell anemia in black people, eastern Asian eyes, inability to process lactose in non Caucasians and non Asians, etc). All of them appeared because we didn't have technology to handle the hardships of nature that resulted in natural selection. Now we have that technology and, for the majority of population, natural selection doesn't select.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonWell, I sort of agree with you, that the evolutionary pressures of the modern human in the modern technological age are both fewer and different than they would have been 75K years ago, but there are many areas it is relevant. Plus most of your examples are bad. immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European diseases -- I've read that this imbalance was largely due to the evolution of European populations, *because* they lived in cities. In urban environments, one stronger-than-average environmental factor that can prevent people from reproducing is disease; consequently, urban populations tend to have stronger immune systems than more rural populations. So this example actually shows how evolution can still occur outside of nature (although, this particularly is probably less relevant now, because of medicine, than it used to be). inability to process lactose in non Caucasians and non Asians -- Lactose tolerance is actually the mutation, not intolerance. All other mammals, including humans until quite recently, become lactose-intolerant pretty early in their lifetimes, shortly after weaning. Lactose tolerance is thought to have arisen about 7000 years ago from a mutation in probably European populations, who had domesticated animals that could be milked. Since then the gene has spread, further than Northern Europe, but it's really only common in something like 30% of the people in the world (by and large Caucasians) -- modified at 17:58 Wednesday 28th March, 2007
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
"The problem with current evolutionary theory is that if females select the most attractive mates, the genes responsible for attractive features should spread quickly through a population, resulting in males becoming equally attractive, to the point where sexual selection could no longer take place." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that all females will only breed with the most attractive males. In reality the most attractive females will tend to get the most attractive males. But the least attractive males and females will still breed (probably with the aid of alchohol). Which will maintain the diverse gene pool. Or something like that.
The problem with the concept of applied evolution is that it's a series of guesses as to what caused what. It's not science and based completely in fantasy. And yet, people think they're being scientific when they invent these causes.
Agreed. Evolution is legitimate science, but the processes are SO dynamic and generally described, it is ludicrous to try any calculate beyond general principles using it. (Think of trying to purchase ski resort properties 10K years in advance, by using knowledge of geology and plate tectonics.) There is a lot of concrete insight evolution brings to biology, but prediction usually isn't one of them. I don't have any complaints with the scientist, himself. I only glanced at the article, but it looked like some kind of modeling of gene transmission through populations. It certainly appeared to be more in the camp of discovering "general principles", so it's superficially legit by me. Trying that use that work to predict mankind's evolutionary future is just a waste of time through. That said, I don't know any scientists or researchers who spend any time at all doing this, let alone trying to make it their life's work. In my experience almost all this stuff seems to be coming from journalists, who are trying to pay their rent by making up sensational stories about stuff they don't really understand.
-
Well, I sort of agree with you, that the evolutionary pressures of the modern human in the modern technological age are both fewer and different than they would have been 75K years ago, but there are many areas it is relevant. Plus most of your examples are bad. immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European diseases -- I've read that this imbalance was largely due to the evolution of European populations, *because* they lived in cities. In urban environments, one stronger-than-average environmental factor that can prevent people from reproducing is disease; consequently, urban populations tend to have stronger immune systems than more rural populations. So this example actually shows how evolution can still occur outside of nature (although, this particularly is probably less relevant now, because of medicine, than it used to be). inability to process lactose in non Caucasians and non Asians -- Lactose tolerance is actually the mutation, not intolerance. All other mammals, including humans until quite recently, become lactose-intolerant pretty early in their lifetimes, shortly after weaning. Lactose tolerance is thought to have arisen about 7000 years ago from a mutation in probably European populations, who had domesticated animals that could be milked. Since then the gene has spread, further than Northern Europe, but it's really only common in something like 30% of the people in the world (by and large Caucasians) -- modified at 17:58 Wednesday 28th March, 2007
Nathan A. wrote:
but there are many areas it is relevant
Can you give an example? The only one that comes to my mind are the African prostitutes who developed immunity to AIDS by genetic mutation. But prevention campaigns have a much bigger impact in survival rates than genetic mutations.
Nathan A. wrote:
Plus most of your examples are bad.
Yeah, I should have explained them better. The problem is that it is very hard to go deep in this forum. People wouldn't read something long.
Nathan A. wrote:
immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European disease
I was referring to the fact that populations of the Americas were wiped out by the diseases brought by white people (measles, smallpox, etc.). White people were resistant to them because the ones that came were basically the survivors from the Black Plague. The native Americans died in big numbers because they had not gone through this selection. Natural selection operated in the European population for centuries before they arrived at the Americas. And I don't think it happened "outside of nature", Europe was very primitive by then.
Nathan A. wrote:
Lactose tolerance is actually the mutation, not intolerance.
Right. Once again brevity compromised preciseness but I don't think it compromises my argument.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Nathan A. wrote:
but there are many areas it is relevant
Can you give an example? The only one that comes to my mind are the African prostitutes who developed immunity to AIDS by genetic mutation. But prevention campaigns have a much bigger impact in survival rates than genetic mutations.
Nathan A. wrote:
Plus most of your examples are bad.
Yeah, I should have explained them better. The problem is that it is very hard to go deep in this forum. People wouldn't read something long.
Nathan A. wrote:
immunodeficiency in native American peoples against European disease
I was referring to the fact that populations of the Americas were wiped out by the diseases brought by white people (measles, smallpox, etc.). White people were resistant to them because the ones that came were basically the survivors from the Black Plague. The native Americans died in big numbers because they had not gone through this selection. Natural selection operated in the European population for centuries before they arrived at the Americas. And I don't think it happened "outside of nature", Europe was very primitive by then.
Nathan A. wrote:
Lactose tolerance is actually the mutation, not intolerance.
Right. Once again brevity compromised preciseness but I don't think it compromises my argument.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK ChestertonDiego Moita wrote:
I don't think it compromises my argument.
Diego Moita wrote:
Look at all the human traits established in the last 65 000 years ... All of them appeared because we didn't have technology to handle the hardships of nature that resulted in natural selection. Now we have that technology and, for the majority of population, natural selection doesn't select.
From that, I assume you are saying that those evolutionary examples you gave were caused because humans lacked technology, and lived amongst the hardships of nature. I was saying that at least in two of those mutations you are talking about are the result of the development of technology (in the general sense, not the developments of the 20th century sense). The European populations had developed all kinds of technology that let them live in cities (agriculture, economies, construction); living in cities caused that population to develop higher-than-average immunities than the Native Americans. Likewise, the development of animal domestication is where the positive pressure on the lactose tolerance trait came from. I agree that technology is changing humanity's evolutionary direction; the evolutionary pressures are very different, and probably far fewer than they were 65K years ago. But there are still evolutionary pressures, that will over the long term cause changes in the genetic makeup of humanity (I've heard people have gotten taller over the last 100 years). Nevertheless, I think that as long as men and women discriminate when they go out looking for partners, and evaluate some prospective parters as good and some bad, those genes will keep getting scrambled around. (Differences in birth rates between developed and third-world nations would fit the bill of evolution as well.) The world has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and it looks to change just as much in the next 50. While yesterday's evolutionary major concerns are quickly receding into the past, evolution can't help but occur, as long as there is competition for limited resources, success at which is influenced by hereditable factors. In the end, I can't imagine that 65K years from now, humanity won't be at least as different from humans now, as we are from those 65Y ago (which really isn't all that much at all, really).
-
They forget something in basing the argument on genetics only. Women search for the best father for their children (and men search for the best mother), it does not mean they search for the most physically adequate. There are also societal factors that makes a man attractive, for instance his material possessions, which are a symbol of his strength. That's the reason why old rich men have young and beautiful wifes. Rich men are attractive because they are powerful in the context of the values of our society.
-
:)
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips